Atheism as far as I know is a very broad group. We all just do not believe in a deity or many deities. Some classify themselves as free thinkers, for they learn from various sources of philosophical beliefs. Some classify themselves as secular humanists, for they believe that morality need not be derived from a deity, and they do good because it is the right thing to do. There can be left-wing atheists, there can be right-wing atheists. As long as you do not believe in a God, you are an atheists. There can be even a range, from agnostics to strong atheists.

Well, if you can prove beyond doubt that there is a God, that pretty much cracks the atheist movement. Otherwise, as more and more evidence points out that there is no need to invoke God to explain a certain phenomena, the theist movement will start to stand on weak foundations.

Also, with regards to your evolution statement, there is no need for conscious direction. Evolution does not mean improvement of an organism. Evolution just simply refers to the change in allelic frequency in a population over a period of time. Evolution via biased mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow do not require any conscious direction. There is no single direction that an organism will evolve towards. The different selection pressures the organism faces will ultimately determine the direction of evolution of the organism.

There's a special case of evolution that involves conscious direction however, which is artificial selection. We set the perimeters, and we only choose the organisms that have the desired trait to breed. This is how we get the modern banana and various breeds of dogs. We already have a desired direction for that organism to evolve towards, and we direct that.

I'm curious about the precognition review papers. Would you mind if you can find the relevant research papers? Thank you so much in advance if you can find it

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ

(23-04-2012 01:42 AM)Filox Wrote: I thought you were beginning to understand some things, but you are still failing.

Me too. I was about to reverse my -1 on him, (when he refuted all gods, including his own, .. in his other thread, and even though the philosophy part was obviously plagerized), then he just reverted to the batshit room. Oh well. I've been keeping an eye on his site. Today he was totally floored by an argument, and all he could say was "bite me". Heh heh.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(23-04-2012 02:07 AM)robotworld Wrote: Atheism as far as I know is a very broad group. We all just do not believe in a deity or many deities. Some classify themselves as free thinkers, for they learn from various sources of philosophical beliefs. Some classify themselves as secular humanists, for they believe that morality need not be derived from a deity, and they do good because it is the right thing to do. There can be left-wing atheists, there can be right-wing atheists. As long as you do not believe in a God, you are an atheists. There can be even a range, from agnostics to strong atheists.

Well, if you can prove beyond doubt that there is a God, that pretty much cracks the atheist movement. Otherwise, as more and more evidence points out that there is no need to invoke God to explain a certain phenomena, the theist movement will start to stand on weak foundations.

Also, with regards to your evolution statement, there is no need for conscious direction. Evolution does not mean improvement of an organism. Evolution just simply refers to the change in allelic frequency in a population over a period of time. Evolution via biased mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow do not require any conscious direction. There is no single direction that an organism will evolve towards. The different selection pressures the organism faces will ultimately determine the direction of evolution of the organism.

The conscious design is implicit in the unlikelyhood that necessary mutations that allow a creature to adapt to its environment would occur before the organism went extinct. Also the irreducible complexity of many biological mechanisms just wouldn't occur by chance mutations. Is it possible? Perhaps, but not likely and not rationally.

Quote:There's a special case of evolution that involves conscious direction however, which is artificial selection. We set the perimeters, and we only choose the organisms that have the desired trait to breed. This is how we get the modern banana and various breeds of dogs. We already have a desired direction for that organism to evolve towards, and we direct that.

I'm curious about the precognition review papers. Would you mind if you can find the relevant research papers? Thank you so much in advance if you can find it

Natural selection is usually the main force in driving the evolution of an organism towards a certain direction, not mutations, or more specifically, biased mutations. For seemingly irreducibly complex structures, mutations are not the driving force but natural selection. It is a step-by-step process, like building a bridge. Components are added, and the redundant ones are being removed, eventually leaving the final structure behind.

Yes, you are right to say that "irreducibly complex" structures could not have arose from chance mutations. Natural selection is the driving force here, not random mutations. However, mutations are still required to provide the genetic variation for natural selection to act upon.

With regards to your articles, I have read it and I say that is very interesting research. However, efforts to replicate the experiment have failed. Here are the relevant links.

One question. Can you link us to the cases of unexplainable "near death experiences"? Usually near death experiences involve a tunnel of light, an out of body experience, and a heavenly, peaceful feeling. I'm curious whether the unexplainable near death experiences you say are unique in their own way. Thank you in advance.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ

In one of your earlier posts you make some comment about how Behe argued that evolution was false because Malaria had not yet evolved into a higher organism?

2 points to make
1) Organisms evolve as a response to selection pressure. This selection pressure is usually one of 3 (the most common ones I can think of). 1) Environmental change 2) Competition for resources 3) Sexual Selection. For an asexually reproducing species, we can remove #3. If the environment in which the organism lives does not change (ie it lives within organisms that maintain constant body temperatures, moisture levels, etc) then we can remove #2. And if there is no competition for resources from other competing organisms, then we can remove #2. That is to say that an organism like Malaria has not undergone significant speciation in millions of years because there is no selection pressure driving it to do so. That is to say that it is in Stasis, look up some Stephen Jay Gould.

2) Why does everyone assume that evolution is about organisms trying to attain some form of "higher" life? That little paramecium is just fine and dandy thank you very much. This humancentric view of us being the pinnacle of evolution is laughable. Evolution does not mean that organisms are on a "human-like" trajectory and that given enough time, all organisms will attain "human-like" status. Nor does it mean that single-celled organisms will ever reach multicellularity. It only means that organisms will adapt and change based on one of the 3 aforementioned selective pressures and that a single-celled organism may still be able to survive as a single-celled organism, but with a resistance to this thing more so than the other or more tolerant of lower temperatures or capable of living in a new host species or etc, etc.

I won't waste my time on irreducible complexity. Who is to say what is complex and what is not? Crystals look complex. Are they irreducibly complex? I mean if I remove the Cl- ions from the the NaCl structure I no longer get salt crystals. Does that mean that salt is irreducibly complex?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

(23-04-2012 05:59 AM)Egor Wrote: The conscious design is implicit in the unlikelyhood that necessary mutations that allow a creature to adapt to its environment would occur before the organism went extinct. Also the irreducible complexity of many biological mechanisms just wouldn't occur by chance mutations. Is it possible? Perhaps, but not likely and not rationally.

Fail.

Most species that have existed ARE extinct. The ones that are left, overcame the hurdle. It IS very unlikely. The ones that have survived, were "lucky", (ie passed the "probability" test), not "designed". Sorry. Try again. You really don't have any clue about genetics, do you ? At what point, on the probability curve, does it become "irrational" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(23-04-2012 05:59 AM)Egor Wrote: The conscious design is implicit in the unlikelyhood that necessary mutations that allow a creature to adapt to its environment would occur before the organism went extinct. Also the irreducible complexity of many biological mechanisms just wouldn't occur by chance mutations. Is it possible? Perhaps, but not likely and not rationally.

Quote:Fail.

Most species that have existed ARE extinct. The ones that are left, overcame the hurdle. It IS very unlikely. The ones that have survived, were "lucky", (ie passed the "probability" test), not "designed". Sorry. Try again. You really don't have any clue about genetics, do you ? At what point, on the probability curve, does it become "irrational" ?

Once it becomes too complex to understand.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

(22-04-2012 07:44 PM)Egor Wrote: Let me save you all the trouble of debate, eventually, atheists have to deny that real consciousness is possible. They cannot believe in free will, and they cannot believe that consciousness--contrary to evidence--arises from outside the central nervous system. An atheist must believe that consciousness is a byproduct of brain activity and that we are motivated by our environment only.

If an atheists allows for any other possibility, their atheism will fall. Atheism is a very fragile belief system. It's not like theism. Take away an argument for the existence of God and it hardly matters. But if even one thing is admitted to the atheist school of thought that runs contrary to it, the whole thing dies.

Precognition is real. I can attest to it, and there are peer-reviewed papers on it.

Protozoa, namely paramecia, behave as if they have consciousness (willful movement absent external triggers as well as the ability to remember)

Near death experiences do occur that cannot be explained (except as a type of psychic experience)

Evolution is grossly absurd unless there is conscious direction involved.

The Big Bang implies a first cause that is external to the physical world and displays organizing intelligence.

An atheist cannot accept any of these things as possible or real. Even if they have to flatly deny what many have directly observed and experienced or what is absurd to deny. Atheism is an extremely fundamentalistic faith-based form of magical thinking.

Thank you.

Your pal,

Ed

Your misunderstanding of science and reality is breathtaking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.